Ritter v. Second Amendment

This afternoon, Governor Bill Ritter vetoed House Bill 1180, which would have allowed law-abiding gun owners to purchase firearms without jumping through hoops and waiting for additional criminal background checks, this Friday afternoon at 1:47 pm.

The 1000-word press release, in which Ritter attempts to justify the undermining of the Second Amendment of Constitution, hit inboxes at 3:25 pm. This guarantees that the fewest number of Coloradans possible will know about the veto.

Nineteen Democrats in the legislature voted for the bill, but it was too radical for Ritter.

The press release (below) is filled with concerns over safety and none about the document he swore to protect when taking office. Ritter ends by claiming that the bill would have “significantly” weakened the safeguards against the illegal purchase of firearms, which is complete and baseless conjecture.

The fact is that folks who go through the trouble of obtaining concealed carry licenses are not the people who generally commit crimes — in fact, they take the responsiblity of owning a gun seriously. This veto does nothing but make it more difficult for them and does nothing to stop criminals.

(I should point out that The Denver Post editorial board (which I sit on) supported a veto of this bill and, obviously, disagrees with my position.)

I am filing with the Secretary of State House Bill 09-1180, “Concerning allowing valid Colorado concealed handgun permits to satisfy background check requirements for transfers of firearms.” I vetoed this bill as of 1:47 p.m., and this letter sets forth my reasons for doing so.

House Bill 09-1180 would exempt a firearm purchaser from the criminal background check requirement upon the presentation of a concealed handgun permit and one other piece of identification. Current law requires each person who desires to purchase a firearm to undergo a criminal background check. Under current law, a person is denied the privilege of purchasing a firearm if he or she fails a criminal background check. The circumstances that will result in a failure of a criminal background check include, but are not limited to: conviction of burglary, arson, or any felony involving the use of force or the use of a deadly weapon; conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; being adjudicated mentally ill or committed to a mental institution; being dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces; and being subject to a court order that restrains a person from harassing, stalking, threatening, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner or the partner’s child in reasonable fear of bodily injury, if the court order was entered after a hearing meeting certain procedural conditions. See C.R.S. § 24-33.5-424(3)(a); 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

In addition, a person is barred from purchasing a firearm if he or she has been arrested for, charged with, or indicted of any crime that, if convicted, would be a bar to the purchase of a firearm. See C.R.S. § 24-33.5-424(3)(b); 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). Such an arrest, charge, or indictment is a bar so long as there has been no final disposition of the case or the final disposition is not noted in a criminal database. Id.

There are numerous troubling aspects to this bill. First, this bill contains inadequate safeguards to ensure that those who should not be able to purchase a firearm promptly surrender their concealed handgun permits upon the occurrence of a disqualifying event, such as an arrest for a violent felony or the entry of a protective order for harassing or stalking a spouse. Although current law requires a sheriff to revoke a permit if the permittee is no longer qualified to purchase a firearm and section 5 of the bill requires a sheriff to confiscate a concealed handgun permit upon revocation, there is nothing in the bill that assures that revocation will take place promptly upon a disqualifying event. See C.R.S. § 18-12-203(3)(a)-(c). This is because House Bill 09-1180 does nothing to help assure that a sheriff who issued a concealed handgun permit is promptly notified of a disqualifying event. In short, it is easily foreseeable that a potential purchaser will be in possession of a concealed handgun permit for a substantial period of time after the potential purchaser would no longer be qualified to purchase a firearm. Under such circumstances only a criminal background check conducted contemporaneously with a purchase would prevent an unqualified person from purchasing a firearm.

Second, there is nothing in the bill that assures that law enforcement will be aware that a person that they arrest has a concealed handgun permit. There is no central database of permittees. In fact, law enforcement agencies are expressly prohibited from maintaining any kind of statewide database of concealed handgun permittees after July 1, 2011. See C.R.S. § 18-12-206(3)(b). This lack of a readily available means of verifying whether an arrestee has been issued a concealed handgun permit further exacerbates the concern that there will routinely be a substantial delay between a disqualifying event and the surrender of a permit.

Third, there is no requirement that a firearm seller verify the validity of a concealed handgun permit before making the sale. In fact, there are impediments to doing so. For instance, current law places substantial limits on a sheriff’s ability to share information regarding who has a valid concealed weapons permit. Specifically, existing law only authorizes a sheriff to disclose the identity of a concealed weapon permittee to “another criminal justice agency for law enforcement purposes,” and even then the decision to disclose such information rests within the sheriff’s “sole discretion.” See C.R.S. § 18-12-206(3)(a). There is nothing in this bill or existing statute that clearly authorizes a sheriff to disclose to a firearm seller the identity of a person who holds a concealed weapons permit. This impediment to the sharing of information regarding permittees is a further reason that the possession of a concealed handgun permit is an inadequate substitute for a contemporaneous criminal background check.

Fourth, this bill makes it easier for those intent on illegally obtaining a firearm. Although the bill requires the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to create a permit template that is “resistant to tampering and fraud,” no identification document is impervious to forgery. Establishing a background check bypass for those with a concealed handgun permit, creates one more opportunity for those intent circumventing the criminal background check

Finally, this bill weakens the Colorado Background Check Act. One of the guns used in the shootings at Columbine high school in 1999 was purchased at a gun show by an eighteen year old “straw man” without a criminal background check. In the wake of that tragedy, Colorado passed the Colorado Background Check Act into law as Amendment 22 in the 2000 general election. Amendment 22 passed by a greater than two-to-one margin. The Act closed the “gun show loophole” by requiring those who purchase firearms at gun shows to undergo the same background checks as those purchasing firearms from licensed dealers. See C.R.S. § 12-26.1-101, et seq. By establishing a criminal background check bypass, this bill reopens the very loophole that Colorado citizen voted overwhelmingly to close less than nine years ago.

In short, House Bill 09-1180 significantly weakens the safeguards against the illegal purchase of firearms. Accordingly, I have vetoed this bill.

There is advertising everywhere telling you to invest in gold and precious metals. The metal I am investing in comes in Ruger, Colt, Browning, Winchester…

Lorraine

There is advertising everywhere telling you to invest in gold and precious metals. The metal I am investing in comes in Ruger, Colt, Browning, Winchester…

Captain Arapahoe

Any claim that Ritter’s veto enhances public safety is laughable…
By definition, CCW permit holders ALREADY have a firearm – and have gone through a much more thorough background check than the NICS call. The bill Ritter veto’d simply acknowledged that fact and spared permit-holders (and by extension, anyone after them in line) from suffering additional inconvenience in exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right…

Ritter’s reasons for the veto are specious at best, if not downright disingenuous. Revocations of CCW permits for other than minor technicalities (i.e. of sufficient severity to disqualify the holder from purchasing firearms) are exceedingly rare – on the order of a half-dozen (total!) in the last decade…
Ritter then attempts to justify his veto of the proposed new law by citing two existing laws that he would prefer to circumvent, overturn or ignore (restrictions on creating or maintaining a statewide database of CCW holders, and local sheriff discretion in issuing CCW permits). So, per Ritter, were these powers consolidated or granted to HIS discretion, things would be peachy…
Ritter advances a further specious argument, stating that since “no identification document is impervious to forgery,” CCW permits should not serve as sufficient identification for firearms purchase. Oh really? Since forgery of driver’s licenses, the ID used for background checks, HAS been documented – in contrast to CCW permits – and is a thriving underground business, as former DA Ritter should know, the NICS background checks are themselves just as suspect and unreliable as potentially forged CCW permits – if not more so.
Ritter closes with an outright lie – that a “background check” would have had ANY impact on the purchase of the guns eventually used in the Columbine shootings. As Ritter himself noted, the gun in question was purchased by a “strawman” (such purchases were, and are, already illegal) who would NOT have been prevented from making the purchase by Amendment 22, NICS, or other checks since he had no criminal record or other disqualifier. Passage of HB1180 would have NO impact whatsoever on the so-called “gun show loophole” and in NO way “significantly weakens the safeguards against the illegal purchase of firearms.”
Speaking of gun shows – and the ownership, and use, of firearms for defensive purposes by citizens – consider the following list of areas in which people gather in large numbers (potential “mass murder” locales):
1) Schools
2) Restaurants
3) Offices
4) Churches
5) Shopping malls
6) Gun shows
Question: in which one of these has there NEVER been a mass shooting?
Case closed.

Captain Arapahoe

Any claim that Ritter’s veto enhances public safety is laughable…
By definition, CCW permit holders ALREADY have a firearm – and have gone through a much more thorough background check than the NICS call. The bill Ritter veto’d simply acknowledged that fact and spared permit-holders (and by extension, anyone after them in line) from suffering additional inconvenience in exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right…

Ritter’s reasons for the veto are specious at best, if not downright disingenuous. Revocations of CCW permits for other than minor technicalities (i.e. of sufficient severity to disqualify the holder from purchasing firearms) are exceedingly rare – on the order of a half-dozen (total!) in the last decade…
Ritter then attempts to justify his veto of the proposed new law by citing two existing laws that he would prefer to circumvent, overturn or ignore (restrictions on creating or maintaining a statewide database of CCW holders, and local sheriff discretion in issuing CCW permits). So, per Ritter, were these powers consolidated or granted to HIS discretion, things would be peachy…
Ritter advances a further specious argument, stating that since “no identification document is impervious to forgery,” CCW permits should not serve as sufficient identification for firearms purchase. Oh really? Since forgery of driver’s licenses, the ID used for background checks, HAS been documented – in contrast to CCW permits – and is a thriving underground business, as former DA Ritter should know, the NICS background checks are themselves just as suspect and unreliable as potentially forged CCW permits – if not more so.
Ritter closes with an outright lie – that a “background check” would have had ANY impact on the purchase of the guns eventually used in the Columbine shootings. As Ritter himself noted, the gun in question was purchased by a “strawman” (such purchases were, and are, already illegal) who would NOT have been prevented from making the purchase by Amendment 22, NICS, or other checks since he had no criminal record or other disqualifier. Passage of HB1180 would have NO impact whatsoever on the so-called “gun show loophole” and in NO way “significantly weakens the safeguards against the illegal purchase of firearms.”
Speaking of gun shows – and the ownership, and use, of firearms for defensive purposes by citizens – consider the following list of areas in which people gather in large numbers (potential “mass murder” locales):
1) Schools
2) Restaurants
3) Offices
4) Churches
5) Shopping malls
6) Gun shows
Question: in which one of these has there NEVER been a mass shooting?
Case closed.

It is not hard to debunk a poorly written opinion piece when the writer starts the tome with such dishonesty.

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter vetoed House Bill 1180 because it would have allowed law-abiding gun owners AND criminals whose recent acts had yet to cause their concealed-weapon permits to be revoked to purchase firearms without “jumping through hoops and waiting for additional criminal background checks” (which at this point, stop the latter from purchasing additional firearms) this Friday afternoon at 1:47 pm.

It is not hard to debunk a poorly written opinion piece when the writer starts the tome with such dishonesty.

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter vetoed House Bill 1180 because it would have allowed law-abiding gun owners AND criminals whose recent acts had yet to cause their concealed-weapon permits to be revoked to purchase firearms without “jumping through hoops and waiting for additional criminal background checks” (which at this point, stop the latter from purchasing additional firearms) this Friday afternoon at 1:47 pm.

Enough said.

David Harsanyi

Wally — Please provide us with examples of Coloradans who have gone through the trouble of obtaining a concealed carry license; who then went on to purchase a gun at a gun show illegally and subsequently committed a violent crime.

Surely, there must be at least a few examples in the recent news that you can cite since you proclaimed you had so easily debunked my poorly written post. “Enough said” is no way to back up a contention — even in a comments section.

David Harsanyi

Wally — Please provide us with examples of Coloradans who have gone through the trouble of obtaining a concealed carry license; who then went on to purchase a gun at a gun show illegally and subsequently committed a violent crime.

Surely, there must be at least a few examples in the recent news that you can cite since you proclaimed you had so easily debunked my poorly written post. “Enough said” is no way to back up a contention — even in a comments section.

Alex Wiburt

David-

Wally clearly has no idea of what is involved in this process. I would like to see any an “criminals” qualify for a CCW permit to begin with. Presumably he thinks they all have one to lose.

Furthermore, as you state, permit holders “are not the people who generally commit crimes” to begin with, meaning it probably very rare that any of them do anything that would cause a revocation of their permits. So, just who does the Governor think he is looking for?

This is stupidity and political pandering at its worse. Ritter is likely looking to land some kind of position as General Counsel somewhere as he will be unemployed next year.

Alex Wiburt

David-

Wally clearly has no idea of what is involved in this process. I would like to see any an “criminals” qualify for a CCW permit to begin with. Presumably he thinks they all have one to lose.

Furthermore, as you state, permit holders “are not the people who generally commit crimes” to begin with, meaning it probably very rare that any of them do anything that would cause a revocation of their permits. So, just who does the Governor think he is looking for?

This is stupidity and political pandering at its worse. Ritter is likely looking to land some kind of position as General Counsel somewhere as he will be unemployed next year.

Ross Echtermeyer

The last word on Gun Law discussion

I propose that anyone who wants Guns to be banned
that they attach or affix a sign to their vehicle and or premises stating the area is a “Gun Free zone and no guns are available”. This will serve to let people know their position on Gun possession and assure everyone that they are not a threat to criminals or society. Additionally, Out of respect for their opinion and steadfast conviction.. I propose that all gun owners strictly promise not to use their guns or interfere in a “Gun Free Zone” in defense of life or property to protect them. After all, we all need to show respect for those who disagree with Law abiding Gun owners.

Ross Echtermeyer

The last word on Gun Law discussion

I propose that anyone who wants Guns to be banned
that they attach or affix a sign to their vehicle and or premises stating the area is a “Gun Free zone and no guns are available”. This will serve to let people know their position on Gun possession and assure everyone that they are not a threat to criminals or society. Additionally, Out of respect for their opinion and steadfast conviction.. I propose that all gun owners strictly promise not to use their guns or interfere in a “Gun Free Zone” in defense of life or property to protect them. After all, we all need to show respect for those who disagree with Law abiding Gun owners.

RemynRay

The governor thinks his opinion is more valuable and important ………. just another elected official gone elitist and full of self importance……… Remy & Ray

RemynRay

The governor thinks his opinion is more valuable and important ………. just another elected official gone elitist and full of self importance……… Remy & Ray

fcsand007

“Wally” to be blunt…your an idiot that hasn’t a clue as to what you are babbling about.

fcsand007

“Wally” to be blunt…your an idiot that hasn’t a clue as to what you are babbling about.

Walter Sobchak

“Please provide us with examples of Coloradans who have gone through the trouble of obtaining a concealed carry license; who then went on to purchase a gun at a gun show illegally and subsequently committed a violent crime.”

I expected a better retort from you, David.

Come back and see me when you refute my very valid point.

That goes for the rest of you as well.

This bill simply does not solve the problem of ccw permit holders buying weapons after committing crimes that revoke their licenses.

Until that loophole is closed, I will continue to support the Governor on this issue.

Walter Sobchak

“Please provide us with examples of Coloradans who have gone through the trouble of obtaining a concealed carry license; who then went on to purchase a gun at a gun show illegally and subsequently committed a violent crime.”

I expected a better retort from you, David.

Come back and see me when you refute my very valid point.

That goes for the rest of you as well.

This bill simply does not solve the problem of ccw permit holders buying weapons after committing crimes that revoke their licenses.

Until that loophole is closed, I will continue to support the Governor on this issue.

David Harsanyi

Actually, Wally, your point is valid; or you would be able to provide facts to back up your assertion.

You say:

“This bill simply does not solve the problem of ccw permit holders buying weapons after committing crimes that revoke their licenses.”

I say that isn’t a problem. There is no proof that it is.

David Harsanyi

Actually, Wally, your point is valid; or you would be able to provide facts to back up your assertion.

You say:

“This bill simply does not solve the problem of ccw permit holders buying weapons after committing crimes that revoke their licenses.”

I say that isn’t a problem. There is no proof that it is.

Wally Sobchak

Apparently we’ll just have to agree to disagree, David.

As correctly pointed out, the current system under the bill Ritter vetoed would have allowed those permit holders who committed crimes severe enough to have their ccw permits revoked to still be able to purchase firearms until the database was updated.

That is a fact, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Considering that information, it is a little silly of you to whine about Ritter “undermining the Second Amendment”.

With that said, Ritter’s decision will continue to garner my support until the appropriate changes are made to the ccw database.

Wally Sobchak

Apparently we’ll just have to agree to disagree, David.

As correctly pointed out, the current system under the bill Ritter vetoed would have allowed those permit holders who committed crimes severe enough to have their ccw permits revoked to still be able to purchase firearms until the database was updated.

That is a fact, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Considering that information, it is a little silly of you to whine about Ritter “undermining the Second Amendment”.

With that said, Ritter’s decision will continue to garner my support until the appropriate changes are made to the ccw database.

Sandan

Wally,

Since you cite CCW holders who have committed a crime serious enough to revoke their license as a problem I’m sure as David asked, you have numbers and cases to back that statement up. Following your skewed reasoning, I’m sure you have no problem with police officers arresting anyone who looks like a “criminal” to them. After all those folks can commit a crime in the future, and just as easily might have committed an arrestable offense in the past.

Sandan

Wally,

Since you cite CCW holders who have committed a crime serious enough to revoke their license as a problem I’m sure as David asked, you have numbers and cases to back that statement up. Following your skewed reasoning, I’m sure you have no problem with police officers arresting anyone who looks like a “criminal” to them. After all those folks can commit a crime in the future, and just as easily might have committed an arrestable offense in the past.

A Medula

Why is it such a big deal for CCW permit holders to go through a background check? Is waiting some extra time for the gun going cause that much headache?

A Medula

Why is it such a big deal for CCW permit holders to go through a background check? Is waiting some extra time for the gun going cause that much headache?

Joey Bunch has been a reporter for 28 years, including the last 12 at The Denver Post. For various newspapers he has covered the environment, water issues, politics, civil rights, sports and the casino industry.